McCain to Biden: “Or else what?”

posted at 2:41 pm on April 22, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

John McCain appeared on Morning Joe earlier to react to the latest developments in Ukraine, including the tough talk from Joe Biden earlier today. McCain didn’t rebut Biden’s warnings to Russia as much as he wondered what the Obama administration planned to do for a follow-up. McCain interjected, “Or else what?” at the end of the replay of Biden’s remarks. McCain warned that it’s not just the Ukrainians asking the same question, but also US allies and NATO partners in the Baltics:

Earlier Tuesday, Vice President Biden called on Russia to stop supporting the pro-Russian groups who have taken over a number of government buildings in the eastern part of the country.

“Or else what?” McCain asked after listening to Biden’s remarks on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Or else what? What is the vice president saying, if they continue to do this, what will we do?”

McCain, who has called on the United States to offer light military weapons to Ukraine, said Russian President Vladimir Putin is keeping troops lined at the eastern border to evaluate his options. He warned the United States should not underestimate him.

It’s a long segment, with this exchange near the halfway mark. Joe Scarborough noted in the run-up to the topic that a bipartisan consensus seems to be emerging for some kind of limited Western intervention in Ukraine — not military per se, but certainly with energy supplies and perhaps with “light” arms. Scarborough quoted NY Times columnist Nick Krystof as saying that Ukrainians “will not forgive” the West if we stand by and let Russia dismember their nation.

McCain, as one might expect, followed up with a robust argument for more intervention. That is especially true to keep the Baltic states from falling into despair over Western fortitude. Unfortunately, McCain then goes on to insist on intervention in Syria, too, and then suggests that the political lessons of the Vietnam War show that the US will sustain costly and lengthy interventions as long as they know what’s at stake. That’s probably the opposite of what people think when they consider the lessons of Vietnam, thanks in part to the man who is now Secretary of State, and it’s hardly the most attractive analogy for the pro-intervention argument.

McCain’s right that we’ve misread Putin for the last five years, but he’s likely misreading the American public on this point. How did we do with the less-lengthy and much-less-costly Iraq War, which actually succeeded in producing a unified, representative republic in the midst of Arab monarchies and dictatorships?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Unfortunately, McCain then goes on to insist on intervention in Syria, too, and then suggests that the political lessons of the Vietnam War show that the US will sustain costly and lengthy interventions as long as they know what’s at stake.

Ducks have to be ducks and cranky disconnected RINOs have to be cranky disconnected RINOs.

Just a reminder: In the ’12 debates, Mr. Romney stated that Russia was our greatest geo-political foe.
He was derided for that statement, but seems to have been proven right, as Vlad keeps eating Barry’s waffle.

Unfortunately, McCain then goes on to insist on intervention in Syria, too, and then suggests that the political lessons of the Vietnam War show that the US will sustain costly and lengthy interventions as long as they know what’s at stake.

What a lunatic. But I take the point: what exactly is at stake in the Ukraine? At stake for us, I mean?

Many of the arms we sent to Ukraine would simply be appropriated by the Russians or their sympathizers. Why should our policy be to arm Russia? How does that make sense?

Ukraine’s problem is much deeper than weaponry, but poor old Johnny McCain can’t think about this geopolitical situation in any other way, which is a major part of the reason why he’s a commentator and senator and not a president.

I know, every time we talk about it we could make sure we take all military options off the table. Then we can undertake really tough negotiation where in the end we can give Putin everything he wants. Then when he takes more we can be sure to take all military options off the table. Then we can undertake really tough negotiation where…

Yeah, if Ed reads the American people better than McCain this is exactly what we all want to do. We’ll leave it to the kids who we’ve left hopelessly in debt to figure out why we were so useless.

Or else nothing. Stay the hell out of the Ukraine. The time to contain Vlad was years ago. That ship has sailed. If the d!ckless wonders in Western Europe want to do something about it, let them. I repeat, stay the hell out.

Fantastic. So after decades of Europe deriding America a being backwards and ignorant, they’re about to have another war over territory, and they are once again expecting America to send our young into harms way on their behalf.

I say no. If Russia takes over the whole of Europe, too bad. It will all sort itself out eventually. Let’s be like the Swiss and stay out of it.

When the Ukies show some willingness to defend their nation’s sovereignty and territory we can ask “Or else what?” Until then and probably afterward the Ukraine isn’t worth the bones of one United States Marine.

When the Ukies show some willingness to defend their nation’s sovereignty and territory we can ask “Or else what?” Until then and probably afterward the Ukraine isn’t worth the bones of one United States Marine.

I would have preferred for his first step to announce the missile shield will be installed ASAP and that the US is advancing and opening natural gas here in the US to export to Europe then a nice show of force.

Nothing wrong with showing a big stick.

Then I want O and his minions to start charging the EU for any of our military and that they should also be paying us something equitable for our installations in Europe. If they won’t build up there own defenses they should pay us for ours.

Just a reminder: In the ’12 debates, Mr. Romney stated that Russia was our greatest geo-political foe.
He was derided for that statement, but seems to have been proven right, as Vlad keeps eating Barry’s waffle.

Another Drew on April 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Sarah Palin was 4 years ahead of Romney on this issue. Which is light years ahead in the political arena. You can say that Romney “borrowed” Sarah Palin’s foreign affairs “geo-politically” speaking. Too bad Romney was too much of a moron during his domestic policies. Again Sarah Palin is light years ahead of him on anything.

I understand the need of having some check on Putin so that he won’t misjudge western resolve (HA!), but about Ukraine…what’ve they been doing since the USSR break up that they found themselves like sitting ducks and unable to defend themselves?

What prevented them from building a nation capable of sustaining a decent arm forces? Looks to me like they’ve been wasting time with a class of corrupt politicians and oligarchs who have grown really wealthy…shouldn’t there be a price to pay for irresponsible people? The lesson should be you take care of your country and its institutions or you lose it..

unnecessary. We can disagree on strategy and tactics but that doesn’t make any of us stupid. Do you like using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and acting like a D? Sheesh

I find nothing wrong with Saul Alinsky’s tactics except that they are used in service of an ideology I loathe. In fact, most conservatives at this site use them frequently. They just don’t recognize them as Alinsky’s.

Conservatives need to smarten up. We can’t cruise anymore like we could in the eighties and nineties and just assume that most Americans will get it.

The majority of voters no longer assume we know how to run the country better. So you’d better sharpen your message and your tactics. Or otherwise you’ll find that McCain’s 45 percent in 2008 is about what a future GOP candidate can come to expect at election time.

I would have preferred for his first step to announce the missile shield will be installed ASAP and that the US is advancing and opening natural gas here in the US to export to Europe then a nice show of force.

Nothing wrong with showing a big stick.

CoffeeLover on April 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Yes. Putin is out to break up NATO. Keeping it from fracturing should be the primary focus but the missile shield, especially in Poland or the Czech republic is a much bigger slap in Putins face than preventing a few of his cronies from going shopping in New York.
It’s amazing that we have so many useful idiots here willing to come to Putins defense as he slowly reverses the losses of the soviets.

O’Barry really needs to study Reagan, He talks about not wanting boots on the ground, well Reagan brought down the Soviet Union without firing a shot, he did through economic measures. O’Barry seems to think the only economic measures that will work are sanctions. Reagan proved that theory wrong by outspending them on defense and bringing on their economic collapse. We have the same opportunity with oil and gas. This is a long term fix, but just putting it in motion would deter them and bringing back missile defense (Reagan’s vision)would solidify our intent.

Ukraine only gave up their nuclear weapons after we signed a memorandum of understanding with them guaranteeing their territorial integrity. We owe them. We promised.

Of course, that was a white man’s promise – Clinton, I think – and Homey don’t play that. If Ukraine wanted Barry’s help, they should have had the satchel of cash ready for Mr. Holder.

Obama has a pen, and a phone. If Putin doesn’t cave in to the harshly-worded letter, Barry will threaten him with another phone call. And we all know how painful that can be.

Our options are limited now, a full-fledged intervention isn’t in the cards. But we are in this position because Obama has been signalling weakness for over five years now. Indecision in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Waffling over the red line in Syria. Cutting back defense.

Ukraine only gave up their nuclear weapons after we signed a memorandum of understanding with them guaranteeing their territorial integrity. We owe them. We promised.

Horseshit. The US wanted nukes out of Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) without giving a security guarantee, which is exactly what we negotiated. We got exactly what we wanted. No more, no less.

A good thing, too. Ukraine didn’t develop those nuclear weapons on its own and din’t control them, and had it signaled its intention to keep them, Russia would’ve likely viewed it as a casus belli and taken appropriate steps to undermine or even retake Ukraine back in the early nineties.

Fantastic. So after decades of Europe deriding America a being backwards and ignorant, they’re about to have another war over territory, and they are once again expecting America to send our young into harms way on their behalf.

I say no. If Russia takes over the whole of Europe, too bad. It will all sort itself out eventually. Let’s be like the Swiss and stay out of it.

KMC1 on April 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Wrong. The EU does not want war. An article on Daily Beast shows how Germany, France, and Italy sold advanced weaponry to Russia.

The US alone wants this war to prove it can maintain global hegemony and dictate world affairs.

I think one day the majority will wake up and realize we are like Britain post Suez.

In his annual address to lawmakers, top government officials and political leaders, Putin also sought to reassure skittish investors about Russia’s investment climate – just days before a ruling in the tax evasion and fraud trial of oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

His statements on the collapse of the Soviet Union and its effects on Russians, at home and abroad, come as the country is awash in nostalgia just two weeks before the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe – a conflict Russians call the “Great Patriotic War.”

Putin, who served as a colonel in the KGB, has resurrected some communist symbols during his presidency, bringing back the music of the old Soviet anthem and the Soviet-style red banner as the military’s flag.

In the 50-minute address at the Kremlin, Putin avoided mentioning the need to work more closely with other former Soviet republics – in contrast to previous addresses – and he made passing reference to the treatment of Russian-speaking minorities in former Soviet republics.

“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin said. “As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory. The epidemic of collapse has spilled over to Russia itself.”

Ukraine only gave up their nuclear weapons after we signed a memorandum of understanding with them guaranteeing their territorial integrity. We owe them. We promised.

Horseshit. The US wanted nukes out of Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) without giving a security guarantee, which is exactly what we negotiated. We got exactly what we wanted. No more, no less.
Pincher Martin on April 22, 2014 at 5:43 PM

“The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;

“The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
[…]
For Ukraine:
(Signed) Leonid D. KUCHMA
For the Russian Federation:
(Signed) Boris N. YELTSIN
For the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland:
(Signed) John MAJOR

For the United States of America:
(Signed) William J. CLINTON

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal, and to become a non-nuclear nation — the first and only nation in the world to make such a renunciation. At the time, Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power on the planet. It had some 1,900 strategic (long-range) nuclear warheads, and another 2,500 shorter range nuclear weapons under its control. Plus, it had built many of the Soviet Union’s long-range ICBM’s, including the most advanced SS-24 and SS-18 missiles, and also manufactured and assembled the nuclear warheads in Dnipropetrovsk and other facilities in Ukraine. There also were about 200 missile silos stationed in Ukraine, mostly in Western Ukraine.
The CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe) Treaty, and the nuclear-arms reduction negotiations conducted by the Western powers were important stabilizing considerations in the early 1990’s, coming right after the fall of the Soviet Union. They helped ensure that no nuclear weapons would fall into the hands of terrorist groups or other states. I was involved as one of Ukraine’s advisors on the CFE Treaty, and was consulted on the implications for Ukraine. So I know much of this first hand.
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma was aware that giving up Ukraine’s nuclear arms would make Ukraine vulnerable to aggression from its neighbor, Russia — even if Boris Yeltsin was a pro-Western democrat and certainly not likely to use aggression against Ukraine. But what might happen after Yeltsin? Both Kuchma and Ukraine’s Parliament knew that Crimea (and Eastern Ukraine) could become an issue in the future, especially if the next Russian president exhibited the old Soviet imperialist mentality.
That’s why Kuchma, and Ukraine more generally, required guarantees and assurances from the other major nuclear powers — Russia, the United States and the UK (and later France and China, which signed on) — that its “sovereignty and its territorial integrity” would be respected.
With the Budapest Memorandum, U.S. President Bill Clinton, Russia’s Yeltsin, and UK Prime Minister John Major pledged “to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” Vladimir Putin seems to have forgotten about this.
The Budapest Memorandum also provided that any of the parties could request a meeting of all the parties at any time to consult “in the event that a situation arises relating to Ukraine’s sovereignty or territorial integrity”.
A week ago, Britain, the United States and France called for just such a consultation meeting, to be held in Paris on March 5. Russia was given notice of the meeting, and was invited to attend. On the appointed day, all the parties arrived — but Russia refused to attend, despite the fact that Russian aggression was the reason the meeting was called in the first place.

Did you look at that time stamp for your article? Probably not. But I ask anyway, just to be polite.

Putin lamented the end of the Soviet Union a decade ago. Since then he’s added Crimea and South Ossetia to Russia, which is the equivalent to us adding a large county to the holdings of the U.S. Or less than a tenth of a percent to our current territory.

Some expansionist. Don’t get your panties in a wad waiting for Putin to take on NATO.

As to the Budapest Memorandum, it’s horseshit. Look up the Lisbon Protocol to the 1991 START treaty and tell me what you find. Ukraine had already promised to give up its nukes and we talked them through it because they later got cold feet. We didn’t care. We just wanted them to give up their nukes and we had no intention of giving them a security guarantee in exchange for it.

Look up the UN Charter and tell me what you find. The same stuff that’s in the Budapest Memorandum. In other words, the US, UK, and Russia all went through the useless exercise of a memorandum in 1994 to pretend to give Ukraine something in exchange for it ridding itself of nuclear weapons.

The Ukrainians were told this by US negotiators.

*****

Ukraine’s nukes were not its own. They were the former Soviet Union’s, which no longer existed. Russia was the de facto legatee to the nukes and the UN Security Council seat.

Ukraine had even staring handing over the tactical nukes before the 1994 Memorandum, and the ICBMs were pointed at the West, not Moscow. The C&C for those nukes were also in Moscow, not Kiev.

Did you look at that time stamp for your article? Probably not. But I ask anyway, just to be polite.

Indeed I did. Did it occur to you that this same guy has been effectively in charge of Russia since 1999? Longer if you count his time as head of the FSB.

Putin lamented the end of the Soviet Union a decade ago

He’s still there.

Since then he’s added Crimea and South Ossetia to Russia,,,

You forgot Abkhazia and he attacked Georgia using an almost identical game plan. Regardless, does that somehow make it OK for Putin to invade neighboring countries? (Or support the likes of Syria as it gasses it’s own people and laughs at the idea of consequences, or practically gives Iran an atomic bomb?)

. Don’t get your panties in a wad waiting for Putin to take on NATO.

That’s not his objective.

As to the Budapest Memorandum, it’s horseshit.

So our word means nothing. Nice.

Look up the Lisbon Protocol to the 1991 START treaty and tell me what you find

No.

In other words, the US, UK, and Russia all went through the useless exercise of a memorandum in 1994 to pretend to give Ukraine something in exchange for it ridding itself of nuclear weapons.

So our signature signifies nothing and might makes right.Next time we ask a country to do anything do you think they ought to trust us? Rhetorical of course.

Learn a little history and you won’t be so confused by the present.

I love the hubris in your posts, you manage to be smug as you go about beclowning yourself.

Indeed I did. Did it occur to you that this same guy has been effectively in charge of Russia since 1999? Longer if you count his time as head of the FSB.

What? Do you think he’s planning to conquer Europe as an eighty-year-old dictator?

Tinpot autocrats with grandiose plans of conquest like to get an early start. Putin is sixty, and his two conquests so far have been small potatoes. Hitler was dead four years by the time Putin got around to taking over Crimea. There’s no dictatorial viagra for aging strongmen. Like math, it’s a young man’s field.

You forgot Abkhazia and he attacked Georgia using an almost identical game plan.

Abkhazia was Yeltsin’s work. You remember Boris. That scary drunk man who stood up against the Commies and occasionally ran Russia.

But even if I give you Abkhazia, the conquests of Señor Putin still aren’t much bigger than San Bernandino County. In twenty years.

Regardless, does that somehow make it OK for Putin to invade neighboring countries?

If they hadn’t provoked him, they would still be in their current state. You run the Democratically-elected, Pro-Russian leader out of power in a coup, and you shouldn’t expect the Putinistas to take it laying down.

The same kind of provocation led to Georgia’s troubles.

So our word means nothing. Nice.

When we want to make a security guarantee, we put it in real treaties, not a memorandum. George H.W. Bush refused to do that for Ukraine. So did Clinton.